July 18, 2005--In response to the terrorist bombings in London, 51% of Americans want the U.S. and its allies to attack with military force.

As with most issues relating to the War on Terror, Republicans are largely united, while Democrats are divided.

Republicans, by a 7-to-1 margin, say that military attacks are the appropriate response. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats share that view while 39% favor withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Nine percent (9%) of Democrats favor negotiations.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/London%20Bombing.htm

London?

sheesh

I guess we could start with Jerusalem.

That's horrible.

His Fundie disciples want to Napalm a Bunch of "RAG HEADS" </SARCASM>

Maybe we should bomb those too. :eyes:

Branch Dividean I thought... or at least the Oklahoma City bombing was in retaliation for the botched attempt to make the Dividean's surrender in Waco.

So technically we already did bomb them... with people still inside.

If he had, at any point in his life, attended a Christian church, then by the neocon's logic all Christian Churches should be bombed.

That's the problem with the entire neocon mindset behind the "war on terra"; they seek to punish small numbers of murderous fanatics by bombing vast numbers of innocents. On top of it all, those that are most divorced from reality are praying for a Holy War (and see terrorism as a tool that will bring about one).

... of holy sites.

See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1635217

A Rethug Congressman is calling for the bombing of Muslim holy sites should America be again hit by Muslim extremists.

Colorado Repuke congressman, white supremacist, and leader of the House anti-immigration coalition. Really a marvelous example of why abortion needs to remain legal.

as the 9/11 attackers were trained in the US on how to fly the planes they used?

If a military response is the answer, we wouldn't be having our children killed in Iraq right now. Nor would the UK bombing have taken place since we have been responding militarially continuously in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nuke the Hell out of them !

their blood lust. Heck, this is the same crowd that opposes DNA testing of people on death row. They don't care that many of the inmates could be cleared by DNA, all they want is more deaths.

Fact of the matter is that Tony Blair shares the blame with the terrorists for this cowardly attack on innocents in London. It was Blair that ignored the millions of Britons that marched against his war alliance with the criminal Bush. Over a million marched in the streets of London!

The roots of terrorism lie in the injustices of the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by the US.

Right, they're the ones who obligingly stand up and say "Hi! I'm a bad guy, would you please be so kind as to shoot me?"

God people are stupid.

they would like to see him impeached if he lied about the reason to invade Iraq. Got the cultural blood lust revved up again at a very convenient time.

Hmmmm.

After all, that's where the alleged bombers lived. Something like 30% of the people in Leeds are "dirty mooslems" anyway. As for the rest of the residents? Sigh, unavoidable collateral damage. We'll just have to destroy the city in order to save it.

we've got to bomb SOMETHING!

"You gotta nuke something."

I actually heard some nutjob on Washington Journal, last week, say "What's the point of having all these nukes if we're not going to use them?" Sheesh.
The Professor

and refuse to let their own kids enlist, or enlist themselves..they dont have a figgin clue when they respond..

came out of every sewer, every rat hole to vote for him.

are so much like the Nazis? Probably not.

That's what I wonder about.

"Republicans, by a 7-to-1 margin, say that military attacks are the appropriate response"

What does this mean? Attack another muslim country?

The questions in the poll just doesn't make sense.

"How Should US and Allies Respond to London Bombings?
Military Attacks 51%
Negotiate 7%
Withdraw from Iraq 25%"

Attack whom?
Negotiate with whom?

The only option to actually SAY anything about who's involved are the last option.

This is a strange poll.

i.e., any islamic country will do, according to them..after all, people backed the attack on Iraq, and they posed no threat to us..they just happened to be non white and muslim ...

This looks more and more like a religious standoff, doesn't it?

Yikes!

KILL THEIR CHILDREN TOO

NAPALM THEM ALL INTO CRISP BACON

THIS IS WHAT JESUS DEMANDS </SARCASM>

hold the therapy.

Heck, Poop Ratzinger says we should "pray for" the terrorists. We wouldn't want them going to Hell, would we?

Investigations, indictments and arrests.

But let the British do it, not us. They're much better at it. And it was THEIR country that was bombed.

What bullshit. It looks like we still have a long way to go to educate the ignorant masses.

What's the latest poll in BRITAIN say about this? Are they as anxious to destroy some Moslem country in retaliation as Americans seem to be on their behalf? OK that would be -- Pakistan and Jamaica and Egypt. GREAT idea... :banghead:

I thought the British had lost their minds!! Thank goodness they're smarter than us!!

It just didn't sound right. And then I saw it was a poll of Americans.

What I'd *like* to see, is a comparison of what Brits think and what Yanks think. Much like post-9/11, where most prime US targets are bastions of Democrats (i.e. big cities), the call for mindless, non-specific violent revenge is skewed to the right.

It's not any of our business to use military force to respond to THEIR situation. If they want to deal with it without barbarism and brute force, that's their own privilege.

Oh, and by the way, what allies? We're losing them left and right.

Attack, negotiate or withdraw....

Attack where?
Negotiate with whom?

:wtf:

Unbelievable. I don't even know what to say - 51% of Americans want to attack something, anything, to make themselves feel better. It;s a neverending cycle and the only winners are the terrorists and the military corporations. That's fucking great.

Blinders. Half of the country is wearing blinders.

:hide:

Leave it to Steve Bell to sum it up:

Chimp has been looking for to attach Iran.
Hey, why not, who needs a legit reason to go to war anymore....

as you point out, the survey was rigged.

Pisses me off, actually because even though rasmussen is a Repuke, he's been a fairly honest pollster (this last election anyway).

I thought most of those involved in this bombing died in the bombing itself and others are being apprehended. The question is even stupid, I am not surprised at the repub responses, they are boneheads, but some democrats are divided as to what to do?

approved a military response to the Oklahoma City bombing as well. Idiots.

"dead or alive!"

Yes, the right-wing has their fair share of tinfoil-hat-theories, too:

So, the next time some right-winger complains about silly left-wing conspiracy theories, here is a silly right-wing theory we can hold up to ridicule.

Jose Padilla's Oklahoma
City Connection

Was Jose Padilla, the American citizen suspected of plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the U.S., connected to the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in April of 1995?
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/06132002.shtml

Exclusive Report
Iraq Was Involved In Oklahoma City
Posted April 22, 2002
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
http://www.okcbombing.org/News%20Articles/Insightmag_042202.htm


OKLAHOMA BOMBING GRAND JURY LOSES CREDIBILITY
Clinton Administration Successful in Establishing Party Line

<snip>

Gagan claimed to have been recruited by Arabs or Iranians operating through Mexico to deliver explosives for a series of planned bombings of federal buildings in Denver, Phoenix, and Oklahoma City. At various meetings in Las Vegas, Denver, and Kingman, Arizona, he met with Omar, Ahmad, and other representatives of the Hizbollah terrorist organization, as well as male Caucasian American citizens. {The New American March 31, 1997.}
http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/archive/government/grand_jury02-99.html

somewhat ironic.

The poll definetly should have asked "WHO?" (probably France)

So they can say "most" Americans.

This week on Fox: Extreme Bombing Make-Over

I think a military response is what the terrorists want also. That is how the USSR met it's demise. They went broke fighting Afghanistan

How do you think the US Government should respond to Hurricane Emily?

1) Attack with the full might of the US Army- 51%

2) Negotiate with it- 10%

3) Withdraw from Texas- 25%

4) Ask the United Nations to issue economic sanctions- 14%

...Texas Bashing. :)

(Not that some don't deserve it.)

We're trying down here.

n/t

It's smaller, so some "light" bombing of border areas would be considered less risky.

U.S. Could Strike Northern Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1634191

Iraq: Evidence of Syria's Help to 'Terrorists'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1631733

Jordan says Iraq-bound militants train in Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1630126

US demands Syria stop support to Islamic Jihad
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1625951

How about a war we can win this time? Besides, Lichtenstein has all of the same things going for it Iraq had: they possess no weapons of mass destruction and have no link to the terrorists, what could be more perfect?

but the freeps want blood anywya :eyes:

...terrorists were based? Hmm...that's one way of getting rid of Blair I hadn't considered. Or perhaps Dewsbury should just prepare for shock and awe.:shrug:

shit.

terrorists. {It might be more comfortable for the troops, and there is less of a language barrier.)

:sarcasm:

Level Leeds to the GROUND! Interrogate and torture all the survivors!

You stole my post!! Yeah that would get the red-meat gristle-faced republicans standing at full attention.

but you can't prove it! :shrug:

Only the ones on Cialis, the others are flying old glory at half staff.

does that mean the US is going to bomb the UK???

We don't even know the questions asked, but the answers imply really dumb questions. "military attack," "negotiate," or "withdraw from Iraq."

Was the question loaded? Did it have anything to do with Iraq? I mean, they could have asked anything from "If the London attacks are proven beyond a doubt to have been perpetrated by the Iraqi insurgency, would you support..." to "How would you prefer the government respond to the London attacks?"

Notice, two, that there is a missing 17%. Did those people hang up? Did they refuse to answer?

If anyone has premium service, see if they give the questions. Without the questions, we don't have any idea what people are actually saying here.

selected, we have little information on who actually wants to attack. If it was an open pole similar to the ones we here on the duers often vote in it really does not reflect anything. My guess is that it was a pole dominated by repugs. Also because a small survey comes up with 51%, that does not reflect all Americans. Even a general election does not reflect all Americans because many either could not or chose not to vote. More than likely 51% of the repugs want to attack!

We aren't very responsible as a people.

Bomb 'em!

That's the answer to everything, isn't it?

refuses to give up violence.

And this country sees itself as chosen by God to dominate the entire world? Not till it learns to control itself and behave with humanity and compassion.

one of the things that you learn from being around fundies (I have an uncle who is one) is that the bible is their "sword" but nowhere in the bible does it say that the U.S. is some sort of chosen country (not that it could possibly, but you get my point). We passed "laughable" on the hypocrisy scale eons ago with these sheeple.

Is only Christian when it suits a purpose, like making the biblical
law the law of the land, or killing or forcing others to swallow the
kool-aid.

me thinkin' the "Brits" had gone off the deep end.

Sheesh, this part is mind-boogling - how do they define "winning"?

A related survey found that 44% of Americans believe the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror.

Or barring that, any ol' Muslim nation will do?

Obviously these 51% have a problem.

It's like suggesting Kristallnacht! Whom is to be attacked?! It's clear that this is a call for war against Arab and Muslim people generally.

who said to turn the other cheek. Wonder if they heard of him

''we're attacking already!" --

i wouldn't disbelieve that 51% of americans want a military response to the london attacks -- in fact, that just confirms what i think about most of my fellow americans.

or ask their family members to enlist..the loudest assholes calling for war are usually the ones hiding behind their TVs and keyboards..chickenhawks.

Against Pakistanis in Yorkshire? Against Pakistan? Against Jamaica, country of origin of Lindsey Germaine? Against unsuspecting goatfarmers in some other Third World country? I guess it doesn't matter, as long as they get to see some cool explosions on TV. My God, Republicans are incurable idiots.

Why does this kind of thinking say to me:

If I drink enough I won't feel like drinking more?

Drunk on their own putrid selves. ugg...

Military response? And exactly who are we going to attack for these London attacks? I mean if it was Al-Qaida, then the guy who is responsible is sitting in a cave somehwere in Pakistan. So why not go find Bin Laden (like we should have been doing anyway) and let that be the military response?

...But only if they can be sure to get Geoffrey Boycott....Bloody Yorkshire Bastards!!!

:D

That bastard never did fix it for me to ride in a fire engine.x(

..Jimmy didn't Fix shit for me.....You're right!!! Fuck 'em both... :rofl:

have never experienced having bombs dropped on their heads and as such have NO CLUE... :eyes:

Who are we supposed to bomb? Ah, fuck it, let's just bomb somebody and make it alllllll betta.

(but Musharraf might not like that, since he's an ally and all)

The last theory of the case I read was that the bombers were British born, from Leeds.

if Al Qaeda is taking responsibility, maybe you people better convince your Prez to go haul in Bin Laden.....

Oh wait...but the oil, the oil!!!

:sarcasm:

There is a clear man-date (51%) to attack err... somewhere ?

Let's see if I have this right. So, they bomb, then we bomb, then they bomb, then we bomb, then they bomb, then we bomb, then they bomb, then we bomb. And then winner is, "Absolutely nobody" why, because there will be nobody left. And why is that, because either they or we will or both will use nuclear option and then goodbye mankind forever.

...or wherever we need an oil pipeline laid. Which also means, Alaska better watch out to....

We'd be better off just randomly shooting missiles into space. How stupid.

...we'd block off the city of London and raze it to the ground to "kill" the "foreign insurgents." Then we'd repeat it every month or so.

Think Tony Blair would dig that?

________________________________
Tony: "Put me down, Konga! Put me down! Konga! Put me down!"
Dubya: "Grrrrrr! Arggggh! Grok!"

against any nation or even group of people. Like 9/11 it is planned, supplied and executed by individuals. The 9/11 terrorist all were living IN the US. As I understand it the London bombers were both living there and were citizens of England. Who in the hell do they want to attack?

and nukes and fireworks into the air and let god them drop where he thinks is best. Then we can keep bombing these locations until everyone is dead or wishes they were. Uhm .. just in case ---:sarcasm:

Bomb Leeds?


-P

Then who would they bomb exactly? Or are these people just clueless about how terrorism works? It's a police action that they need to be looking for, as terrorists are rarely acting on behalf of a military or country itself. We bombed the shit out of Afghanistan for supposedly harboring OBL (who?) and what has it done? Jack shit.

... why don't they bomb the place that Eric Rudolph is from? Seeing that he's a terrorist and all that. Oh hold on... he's a white American right-wing guy... so I guess it's all OK then.


-P

We are just a hair trigger country now, aren't we? Shouldn't they response come from Britain, since it happened there? Shouldn't the decide? And we as their "ally" will then agree to what they come up with? Isn't that how the normal world works? Oh sorry, we are dealing with bizarro world now.

Damn it to hell! I so sick and tired of moron* and his arrogant room full of dopes deciding what should be done for "the good of the world". Fuck them! They can't even take care of their own house(rove leaking secrets).

Colossal failure*

Everyone bashing Americans as 'stupid' should look at the poll for crying outloud.

People had three choices to choose from in this question: Military Attacks, Negotiate with the Terrorists, or Withdraw troops from Iraq. Between those three, I might choose Military attacks myself. Where? Why not Pakistan? Not against Pakistan itself, but against the terrorist cells there. It's like this was an opened ended question and people just answered "Bomb someone".

In addition, the people were almost split 40%-40% on who they trust Democrats or Republicans on the war on terror. That is a good thing a rise in the polls for Democrats I believe. We all should be focusing on that instead of just bashing our fellow countryman without looking at the facts. Geez, is this DU or Freepville? There are so many of you posting without looking at the facts, I'm getting confused. :shrug:

... and it's an idiotic poll. Why even ask those questions?

-P

The poll is designed to get idiotic answers. Few people care to actually look at the damn thing. It's easier to blame everyday Americans and say they are stupid.

A. Nuke " them( WHO EVER THE FUCK THEM ARE) back to the stone age"!!

B. Do nothing.

Only 2 choices you MUST VOTE !!!!!!!

1. Afghanistan = Conflict intensifying

2. Iraq = Conflict Intensifying

3. Bombings in other countries to include, but not limited to, Indonesia, Spain, and the UK.

4. America's former Allies have been basically turned-off by the behavior of the U. S. on a variety of issues and levels.

As far as trusting ANY of these polls, you would be better off thinking of them as vehicles for generating propoganda to serve the interests of the NeoCons.

IMO

It's Londoners who have suffered through this, who have lost friends and family, and feelings of safety. It should be up to them--and, by extension, their lawmakers.

Who cares what Americans think the response should be to British bombings? What do the Brits think?

My second thought, "What military force?" We're kind of bogged down, ya know.

I agree 100% that this bombing requires a military response and heres mine ...

1. Pull all our troops out of Iraq and Afganistan

2. Bring Bush et all up on charges before a military tribunal

How's that for a military response

You know how dumb the average person is.

Half of them are dumber than that!

our foreign policy of the last 55 years in particular, the last 200 in general.

There has been no country tied to these attacks, so just who would we attack? Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve political goals, it does not matter if those acts of violence are committed by the wealthy or the poor. A military response would be an act of terrorism, and I condemn anyone who believes that terrorism is an appropriate response to these attacks.

But they've got nukes.

Jesus would want to attack! ATTACK! :crazy:

That particular organization seems to have treated it as an internal security issue.

"News of the breakthrough comes as a Times poll conducted in the aftermath of the bombings indicates that an overwhelming majority of the British public favours a tough approach to terrorist suspects. Almost 90 per cent of people want the police to be given new powers to arrest people suspected of planning terrorist acts, tighter immigration controls and strict baggage inspections.

Londoners, who bore the brunt of last Thursday’s carnage, were not as supportive of draconian measures as people in the rest of the country."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1690391,00.html

More:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1690261,00.html


Meanwhile, most of the British people seem to think that the bombings ARE linked to the Iraq War. And a third of them said that Blair bears "a lot" of the responsibility.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1531387,00.html

rasmussen is the biggest fraudulent pollster out there. Totally pro-radical-right. Look ta their polls from the election last year. they're totally out of the mainstream

....Oh wait! They're suppose to be our buddies!

Sorry guys, but no bombing our buddies. Come back tomorrow and we'll try to convince you on a change of venue...Like...Syria! They had nothing to do with the London bombings but boy, do they look bombable or what????

Faux does their best to ask slanted questions, but their efforts pale in the face of true professionals like Scott Rasmussen.

:eyes:

I rather doubt Her Majesty's Government does. Terrorism is a criminal act, and should be met with criminal investigation and judicial punishment (which is how the UK is dealing with it).

I suppose these people would've bombed Belfast till the rubble jumped after the IRA attacks, too... :eyes:

Note to the rest of America: learn to mind your own damned business, and maybe the rest of the world will like you a little better.

to keep Bush's polls up and a war going - anywhere. Get that man's finger off the red button while we still have a chance.

Are they wanting Blackhawks, Cobras and Apaches to launch an offensive in Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield?

Anyone else find it interesting that the same percentage in favour of whupping-up on SOMEBODY (anybody!) is the same percentage of morons and idiots that put Chimpus Maximus back in power?

So WHO we gonna attack? England? Wipe Leeds off the map? Naw.....I know!

Let's bomb IRAN!!!!!

Not Pakistan, no, no...Musharraf's doing too good a job of keeping Poppy's friend Oh-sum-guy-Bin-Forgotten on ice....

How are we supposed to attack someone we do not have the military force to do that. Since the majority of American forces are in Iraq how can we begin another war in another country? I do not believe we need a bigger military force; we just need to fight the right wars.